Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So, when soap goes on sale at Target this week and then you buy it next week at regular price you think Target increased the price of soap?

Yeah, that's some fine logic there. No wonder we're getting our asses kicked globally.

DING NAB IT.
I know y'all are probably pulling my leg, but let's be clear. If they didn't increase the price, it would stay on sale forever. There is no way to get the price from less to more without INCREASING the price.
ding nab you mean people, aggravating me.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

ding nab you mean people, aggravating me.

now you are increasing your blood pressure....

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

They will have increased the price from what you pay for it this week to what you pay for it next week. We are discussing "relative to" not "absolute."


You are taking a two-step operation and then conflating the two steps into one and then pretending that the two steps never happened in between. That is the source of the apparent confusion.

Soap starts out at $1 per bar last week.

It is reduced to $0.90 per bar this week.

It is then increased from $0.90 per bar this week back up to the $1 per bar that it was last week.

If you start with two weeks ago, the price is the same now as it was then....it was reduced by 10% and then increased by 11% leaving it where it started.


You are saying that since it was $1 last week and $1 next week then no changes occurred in between.

thank you. Maybe I'm not insane after all.

(moving from less to more is an "increase").

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

now you are increasing your blood pressure....

no, no, this is where it was once 10 years ago before I started temporarily exercising. Therefore it's not an increase.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

thank you. Maybe I'm not insane after all.

(moving from less to more is an "increase").

This is the same logic that is preventing our government from functioning. Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.

That's fine. You want to use that logic no problem. There is no way out of the box then.

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

and we wonder why America failed.

Danged kids.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Take some time to look at criticism of Pres. Bush's execution of the "war on terror", and look at Pres. Obama's. During the Bush years, you had Dems denouncing his tactics and denouncing the man meanwhile the Repubs were holding up his actions as The Way. Now that Pres. Obama is in office, he's excoriated by Repubs and held by Dems as the shining light of truth. What policies have changed between the two administrations in terms of executing this war? Why have the detractors and supporters switched roles?

I have no doubt that this is where people will complain that everyone only talks about Bush...but you asked...

First, youre assuming that everything is black or white. Everyone supports everything Obama does or hates it. It wasn't true for you guys and Bush and its not for Dems and Obama. Why do you think there's been so much discussed consternation on the 'far' left about things like gitmo.

But the message is that by and large, Obama has had a much better approach and been more effective.

Obama's focus has been different. Obama: "I continue to believe that the greatest threat to the United States' security are the terrorist networks like Al Qaeda," Bush: "I truly am not that concerned about OBL"

Obama has taken a different approach to terror regarding the Iraq invasion. Obama got us out of Iraq. Bush: "Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."

Obama has taken a drastically different road on diplomacy with various countries. Our cause on terror is not helped by calling other countries around the world evil and constantly raising and lowering the domestic threat level.

And lastly, its hard to argue with results.

Its apparent that at least someone here thinks that Bush's foundational approaches are correct.

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This is the same logic that is preventing our government from functioning. Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.

That's fine. You want to use that logic no problem. There is no way out of the box then.

This has ZERO to do with anyone's point. I'm the one that said tax increases are NECESSARY, otherwise we'll never pay off the faux "stimulus" waste-athon. But to say that increase is not an increase simply because the rate already "should have been" higher is just stupid. Call it what it is.

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'll make it easier yet: There is one way, and one way only that we'll "let the tax cuts expire". That is to INCREASE tax rates. There is no other way.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'll make it easier yet: There is one way, and one way only that we'll "let the tax cuts expire". That is to INCREASE tax rates. There is no other way.

Nope. We can't increase taxes.

This certainly explains why current intake is at about 15% GDP and outtake is about 25% GDP. We can start wars, we can placate baby boomers, we can nationalize education, we can destroy our credit rating. We cannot pass a law that ends on a certain date. Can't be done.

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Nope. We can't increase taxes.

This certainly explains why current intake is at about 15% GDP and outtake is about 25% GDP. We can start wars, we can placate baby boomers, we can nationalize education, we can destroy our credit rating. We cannot pass a law that ends on a certain date. Can't be done.

ummm. sorry about my rant. It turns out we're not even on the same subject. My quibble was with Priceless over the definition of the word "increase".

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.

now you are just being petulant. there is a very big difference between "targeted and temporary" (e.g. the one-year payroll tax cut) and "long-term with sunset." it is only because the 2001 Congress operated under fairytale accounting rules that the sunset was even required in the first place. the goal was to make those tax rates so popular that Congress wouldn't dare raise them again, and that goal has pretty much succeeded. Those tax cuts were for every taxpayer; the rate for the lowest bracket was reduced from 15% to 10%. Tax rates were cut for every bracket across the board.

Now, everyone wants all of the cuts for all but one of the brackets to remain in place, and that is a different kind of fantasy land. the argument isn't now and has never been to restore ALL of the tax rates to pre-2001 level, the argument is limited to whether only the top bracket should be restored to pre-2001 levels while all other brackets remain at post-2003 levels (the difference in years being due to the acceleration of the phase in).

I disagree with both parties here. we need to increase taxes across the board.

for two reasons.
> for national unity. this "rich vs everyone else" is unhealthy and destructive. we are all in this together; we should behave that way. Republicans trashing all things Democratic, Democrats trashing all things Republican.....is it any wonder that the average person says "a plague on both their houses" when that is all they hear, all day, every day???
> for practical reasons. the "rich" don't have enough income on their own to finance the revenue needed, even if you taxed them at 100%. You have to go down to about the $50,000 income level to raise enough revenue to begin to address the problems in a realistic manner, and even that requires substantial reductions in the rate of spending growth. We need to reduce the baseline and then have future spending increases limited to growth in the GDP, so that spending is fixed at a % of GDP (on a rolling average basis to smooth out the economic cycle).

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

LOL.

I know the rich don't have enough. What I find glaringly obtuse is the fact that that's the argument every time we want to raise taxes on them. Raising taxes on the rich isn't about balancing the budget. It's about fundamental fairness, then its about revenue.

But the argument is your side always has to go first. So, for the Republicans we need entitlement reform first. For the Democrats we need to tax the rich and cut defense spending first. Thus, nothing will ever get done cause no one is going to go first. Why? Cause they're too incompetent to do both at the same time. That, and every Republican has signed his life away to Grover so they can NEVER agree with the Democrats. NEVER.

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Take some time to look at criticism of Pres. Bush's execution of the "war on terror", and look at Pres. Obama's. During the Bush years, you had Dems denouncing his tactics and denouncing the man meanwhile the Repubs were holding up his actions as The Way. Now that Pres. Obama is in office, he's excoriated by Repubs and held by Dems as the shining light of truth. What policies have changed between the two administrations in terms of executing this war? Why have the detractors and supporters switched roles?

Who on the Left is holding him up as the 'shining light' when it comes to the "war on terror"? Most people on the left are p!$$ed that he hasn't closed Gitmo. We're happy that he left Iraq, are leaving Afghanistan and aren't going to be bombing Iran but an awful lot of people wanted (unrealistically I think) us to leave Afghanistan much faster. He also declared that he would target suspected terrorist - including American citizens - for assassination. These are just a few examples. I'll challenge you to show some proof that people on the left are that thrilled with the president concerning the GWOT. It certainly isn't my experience.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

But the argument is your side always has to go first. So, for the Republicans we need entitlement reform first. For the Democrats we need to tax the rich and cut defense spending first. Thus, nothing will ever get done cause no one is going to go first. Why? Cause they're too incompetent to do both at the same time.

How about that, we said basically the same thing.....